|WikiProject Plants||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Australia / Biota / Western Australia||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
"It is widely held that the Karri is the second tallest tree on Earth with the Redwood of North America being the tallest"
- Karri is considered one of the tallest species of tree in the world. In terms of trees standing today, it is 9th, and like E. regnans there is evidence to suggest that substantially larger specimens have existed in the past. However I am unaware of any reputable source to support the claims that Karri "is widely held" to be "the second tallest tree on Earth". I have removed the statement. Drew (Snottygobble | Talk) 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- The general consensus would appear that it is the 3rd tallest hardwood tree in the world, behind the Redwood and E.Regnans. When softwood trees are considered I think it loses 3rd place but is still in the top 10. However it seems appropriate to say that Karri is the second tallest tree in Australia and the tallest in Western Australia. JAW 05:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I always understood it to be the second tallest hardwood (I believe the Pemberton tourist map states as much). The Redwood (Sequoia), a conifer, is surely a softwood. I also understood the name "E.diversicolor" related to the two-tone leaf, not the mottled bark. Is there a citation for the statment as it stands?--AndyD_MB 13:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "poor" is used in article to describe the ground. This must mean.....soil unsuitable for growing crops? .... it's obviously pretty fine soil for Karri. Or.....does this mean something else.. that Karri has an ecological niche alowing it to grow where other similar trees cannot?
Apparently the writer is quoting some source. That source should be explicit.
- It means nutritionally poor. Hesperian 23:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Being a bit of an environmentally-aware geek, I like this article as it stands. But I just cruised in to learn a bit more about WA's logging history, and there's nothing here. From that angle, it seems a bit white-washed. Any help? BoundaryRider (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)